The Post & Email 7/19/2022
On July 6, a motions hearing took place by Zoom at the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, during which Kimball heard arguments from each side as to why the case should go forward or be dismissed, respectively.
“The fact is that when you inject mRNA into a human being,…” Martin said (), “that mRNA makes the human body produce a scheduled toxin, and by ‘scheduled toxin,’ I mean the spike protein modeled after the coronavirus spike protein, and we need to be clear on the fact that by all of their own admission, the spike protein that the injection manufactures is a computer simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus. It is in fact not a coronavirus vaccine; it is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin, and that toxin has been scheduled as a known biologic agent of concern with respect to biological weapons for the last now decade and a half.”
During the July 6 hearing, Atty. George Wentz for the plaintiff agreed with the defendants’ attorney, Joel McElvain, that CMS has the authority to mandate the shots for healthcare employees at institutions which receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, as by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. However, Wentz argued that the injections are not, per se, “vaccines” given they have been found, according to CDC Director , not to prevent transmission of the virus.
On page 4 of the 32-page , Wentz wrote that the CDC has altered its definition of “vaccine” since the coronavirus products were released to the public from “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
The definition of “vaccination,” too, was changed, Wentz pointed out.
More:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2022/07/19/no-decision-yet-in-case-challenging-vaccines/
